In 1998 we published the first comprehensive study of
ancient Greek manuscript evidence for the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the Christian
Scriptures[*] in our book The Tetragrammaton and the Christian
Greek Scriptures. Prior to that time, little attention
had been given to the actual manuscript evidence supporting the
Tetragrammaton (יהוה) in the Christian
Scriptures. As a result of our book, a number of new books in
English and other languages have been published promoting both
sides of the debate; many websites in multiple languages are
debating the topic; and the subject is frequently discussed in
chat rooms. (See our responses to just a small portion of this
debate: Debate with Greg
Stafford, E-mail
Debate, website Debate,
and Review: 'Your Word is
Truth'.) This discussion of manuscript evidence is
becoming a topic of significant importance to those who use the
New World Translation Bible.

[*] At least one prior book was
reportedly published on this subject, but we have not been
able to locate the book, its title, or the author. It
apparently had limited circulation. Numerous other books
have mentioned the subject in passing.

By manuscript evidence, we mean a study of ancient
Greek Christian manuscripts themselves. Today, however, none of
the original documents written by the apostolic authors remain.
(The original documents are called autographs.)
Therefore, the words used in the autographs must be
reconstructed from copies which survived.

Reconstructing the actual words written in the autographs
is done by studying more than 5,000 ancient manuscript copies
which are now available. For a more complete description of
this process see the Textual
Criticism link on this site.

Watchtower Society publications frequently refer to the
presumed presence of the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the autographs. However,
these discussions almost never refer to manuscript evidence.
Rather, they refer to external supporting evidence such as
Septuagint editions which used the Tetragrammaton, an
assumed heresy involving the second and third century scribes,
Hebrew versions which use the Tetragrammaton, and the
like.

Logically, the majority of the external supporting evidence
used by the references in paragraphs 4 and 5 above could be
true even if the Tetragrammaton (יהוה)
was not used in the autographs. (We now know that the
Tetragrammaton (יהוה) was used in
certain Septuagint versions, it is clear that Christians
copied the Septuagint using "Lord", etc. But all of this
could be true whether or not the autographs used the
Tetragrammaton.[*] Use of the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the autographs can only be
established with verifiable manuscript evidence.)

This entire debate focuses on the 237 "Jehovah" references
found in the Christian Scriptures of the New World
Translation. For more information regarding the importance
of this debate, read The Central
Issue on this website.

Yet, one must ask, "Why only these 237 references?" What
would be the result if all references to
יהוה (Jehovah) in Hebrew versions were
translated as "Jehovah" in the New World Translation? See
Contributions From Our Readers, A. Notes on Hebrew Versions #5
and #8.)

There are three key elements in
this debate:

This debate attempts to define
(or re-define) the essential nature of
Scripture. That which we accept as Scripture
must be defined in one of two ways: 1) The words of
Scripture must be determined by the most probable
reconstruction of the autographs. This
reconstruction is based on the best preserved
ancient manuscripts. Or, 2) Certain words of
Scripture may be suggested by an assumed, and
essentially unverifiable event in history (the
removal of the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the 2nd and 3rd
centuries), merely because this supports a
particular view-point.

Refutation of the textual
argument never uses textual information. When
responding to the challenge that there is no
evidence supporting the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the Christian
Scriptures, the proponents of this theory
always use arguments aside from
manuscript evidence to support their position.
There has never been a challenge to the material on
this website using verifiable Christian Scripture
manuscript evidence to show that the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) was used in the
autographs.

All arguments for the reliability of Scripture
depend on the same principles which are dismissed
in regard to the Tetragrammaton. Aside from
the single issue of the
Tetragrammaton,[*] the translators of
the New World Translation Christian
Scriptures strongly advocate adherence to the
most probable reconstruction of the Greek text.
Unlike most Protestant Bibles, the translators
appropriately did not include the spurious
passages from Mark 16:8 and following, John 7:53
to 8:11, and 1 John 5:7-8 (to name only three
more prominent examples) for the very reason that
these passages are not supported by the most
reliable Greek manuscripts.[**] The
reason the New World Translation
translators used the Westcott and Hort Greek text
was precisely because it was a better
reconstruction of the text than the older
Textus Receptus (King James) text. Thus,
with only the exception of the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) issue, the
translators of the New World Translation
have declared that the words of Scripture must be
determined by the most probable reconstruction of
the autographs. This reconstruction is based on
the best preserved ancient manuscripts using
accepted textual criticism principles.

[*] This is true
inasmuch as the "[other]" passages in
Colossians 1 and similar unique qualities of
the NWT are better defined as "interpretation"
differences rather than "textual"
difference.

[**] The passages from Mark and John
are added as footnotes for reference
only.

It is impossible to
have a reliable Christian Scripture text if a
single detail which is as important as the
Tetragrammaton (יהוה) was
removed from the earliest manuscripts without
leaving any indication of its original presence
in the autographs. If the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) was used in the
autographs, yet cannot be substantiated with any
manuscript evidence, then the entire science (and
art) of textual criticism is faulty and we can
have no confidence that the Christian Scriptures
are trustworthy. On the other hand, if the
Christian Scriptures are a faithful guide for
life, then the same degree of reliability for the
text as a whole must be applied to each of the
237 "Jehovah" instances which do not contain the
Tetragrammaton.

What to expect in the future. From the Watch Tower
Society's perspective, it is forced to defend its position that
the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) was included
237 times in the Christian Scripture autographs. This is true
because the unique quality of the New World Translation
is entirely dependent on it. Thus, the debate will continue
because others who are not ones of Jehovah's Witnesses have
high regard for Scripture as being the inerrant (error-free)
Word of God. It is inconceivable to this latter group that the
Watch Tower Society can claim that they follow a Christian
Scripture which is reliable while at the same time they claim
to "restore" the Tetragrammaton (יהוה)
to the Christian Scriptures while admitting that there is no
manuscript evidence for its use in the autographs.

The debate will continue as it began. The challenge to
the presence of the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the Christian Scriptures
will always appeal to manuscript evidence. The Watch Tower
Society's rebuttal (whether in their own publications or
through others) will always attempt to debate secondary
issues and avoid dealing with a study of the manuscript
itself. Pay attention to the criticism which will be directed
toward this or other websites (and published books) which
argue against the 237 "Jehovah" references in the New
World Translation Christian Scriptures. The criticism
will always be directed toward side issues[*] in
order to destroy the credibility of that website or book.
Beyond a superficial treatment of manuscript information
(such as found in Chapter 2: Use of the Divine
Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures in 'Your Word
is Truth'), this rebuttal will never use substantial
manuscript evidence in order to deal directly with the
absence of the Tetragrammaton.

[*] As any author discusses
side issues, he or she must be held accountable for the
accuracy of that information. Just because an author weighs
in on the side of verifiable manuscript evidence, does not
mean that everything else included in his or her book (or
website) is accurate information.

Editor's note: In a surprising article
in the August 1, 2008 Watchtower magazine (Should the
Name Jehovah Appear in the New Testament?) the editors
published an article we did not expect to see. Though this article
cites the brochure The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever
which states the NWT translators' original reason for
including "Jehovah" in the Christian Greek Scriptures, no reference
is made to their original reason for doing so in this present article.
It appears that since the translators' original stated reasons now
require manuscript and historical evidence which has never been found,
that the editors of the August 1, 2008 Watchtower magazine
sidestepped this important issue, denying the very justification for
publishing the NWT in the first place. In the website page
The August 1, 2008 Watchtower
article, we will evaluate the significance of the Watchtower
Society's inability to justify the reason the NWT was initially
produced.

In paragraph 1 above, we listed the debates to which we
have responded on this website. Read each debate carefully and
you will see this pattern. There is not a single response which
deals in any length (if at all) with manuscript evidence.
Especially look at the link Review: 'Your Word is Truth'. If
you were to read only the book 'Your Word is Truth', you
would think that our book The Tetragrammaton and the
Christian Greek Scriptures was primarily concerned with
making "Lord" and "Jehovah" equivalent terms. Yet, not only do
we not say that they are equivalent terms, that subject is only
a secondary theme of our book which occupies a single chapter.
The over-riding theme of our book is its study of manuscript
and corroborating historical evidence for the use of the
Tetragrammaton (יהוה) in the
autographs.

There will be many variations of this theme in the
continuing debate. (For an interesting example, see the
E-mail Debate on this
website.) There are some topics such as the use of the
Tetragrammaton (יהוה) in first century
copies of the Septuagint which will never have a concise
answer. As a result, side issues will be used to overshadow
that of manuscript evidence. Both sides of the debate will
inadvertently make comments which may have dubious support, or
are highly dependent on subjective interpretation. However, we
must always come back to the central issue. That issue will
always be the verifiable manuscript evidence for
Scripture.

It is not the text itself, but a theological
position which requires the presumed Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) in the autographs. For almost
2,000 years, there has been little confusion to readers of a
New Testament which did not contain the Tetragrammaton (or the
divine name Jehovah). As a result, most New Testament
readers understood Jesus to have an equal nature to God. The
only ones who argue that the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) was used in the autographs are
those with a theological position which requires that Jesus and
Jehovah have a different nature.[*] (See
Review: 'Your Word
is Truth' for more on this topic.)

[*] Over the past 2000 years, there have
certainly been some readers of the New Testament who do not
claim that Jesus and Jehovah have the same nature, though
these readers have been a minority. Nonetheless, with the
exception of those using the New World Translation
since 1950, even this group of readers have never used the
argument that the autographs contained the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה). The statement above is only
saying that those who argue that the Tetragrammaton
(יהוה) was included in the
autographs are those with a theological position which
requires that Jesus and Jehovah have a different
nature.